FOX News: Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany

Chrissy wrote:NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are ALL just a bunch of piss ants on the back of mother earth.

all your solar this and that

all your spend, tax crying, get with the world gov boo hooing

will NOT change a damn thing other than how much you pay.It WONT even change who gets RICH from it LOL

Get a grip. there is NO SUCH THING as MAN MADE global warming

and energy needs are very well taken care of.

I say since 50% of the population is liberal, then why isnt 50% of the population conserving thier energy and paying the BIG bucks to save the planet?

I call BS on the whole god damn thing. If you cant walk the talk, then shut the fuck up.

Scientific data and research has shown that human activity is contributing to climate change. We are seeing the results every day in terms of extreme weather, droughts, floods, super storms, etc. The least we can do is to try and slow the trend.

I think a lot of liberals are in fact doing things, however small, to reduce their carbon footprint. Driving vehicles with good gas mileage (or walking or riding bikes), insulating their houses, using re-usable bags when shopping to cut down on all the plastic bags used at checkout, planting trees, etc.

Here is a link to a site that offers electricity created by wind or solar. I haven't called yet for details but plan to do so. There are many people who are concerned about climate change and are doing something about it.

Everyone should be conserving energy if for no other reason than you save money by not wasting resources. Lower utility and gasoline bills should be appealing to everyone.

http://www.pear-energy.com/wind-energy.aspx

Bob wrote:Converting sunlight into electricity is not evil. It's not "liberal". It's not gay. And it is a helluva lot bigger than obama or fox news. When obama is long dead and those goofy professional mouth-runners on fox n friends are forgotten, the generations of the future will be using this technology.
Why? Because once it becomes practical, there will be a tremendous worldwide demand for it and the technology to make it a reality will make A LOT of money for the people and corporations who are developing and selling the hardware.
No different than all the advances in technology we've experienced before.

Then show the subsidy costs vs ergs of output for your fabulous inventions.

You don't want too. You and the others are afraid to do so because the cost of those subsidies (where you big cash is) isn't paying off and never will. Partly because we can't build enough of these devices to satisfy the demand but most importantly the cost vs erg produced is extremely costly with the technology available hence the huge subsidies. You know it and I know it.

My own opinion is that our best bet would have been to invest in the creation of fusion power and that wind and solar power would go the way of the dinosaurs just like the pony express.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Then show the subsidy costs vs ergs of output for your fabulous inventions.

You don't want too. You and the others are afraid to do so because the cost of those subsidies (where you big cash is) isn't paying off and never will. Partly because we can't build enough of these devices to satisfy the demand but most importantly the cost vs erg produced is extremely costly with the technology available hence the huge subsidies. You know it and I know it.

My own opinion is that our best bet would have been to invest in the creation of fusion power and that wind and solar power would go the way of the dinosaurs just like the pony express.

You're not even reading what I wrote. So let's go over it again...

The problem is not solar energy. The problem is that a community organizer and a bunch of political hacks he has surrounding him have no idea how to effectively apply public funds to anything including development of energy technology. Because they've thrown so much public money (and you can't even say "taxpayer money" because the goddamn money is just borrowed money) down special interest ratholes as political paybacks, that has now turned solar energy into a dirty word in the minds of so many in the public

There's no defense of "subsidies" in that. It's exactly the opposite.
And while I'm all for the potential of a breakthrough in fusion, I have no faith in subsidies being the thing that will produce that breakthrough either. That would be no different than the solar subsidies. The government would have the same incompetency and wrong motives (using the money to repay political favors) with that as well.
So now YOU'RE the one championing subsidies, not me. lol

The continued advancement of photovoltaic efficiency will happen because the enormous potential profits provide an incentive to make that happen. Not the misallocation of public money. And exactly the same holds true for fusion and every other alternative energy.

Both photovoltaic and fusion have something in common. With both, the fuel source which is consumed to make electricity is literally unlimited (sunlight with photovoltaic and seawater with fusion).
Which technology will ultimately win out will be determined by a comparison of how cost-effective each technology ultimately becomes. That's yet to be determined. That hasn't played out yet. So unless you have a crystal ball that none of the rest of us have, your favoring one over the other at this point is premature.

And please stop overusing the word "ergs" in your posts. There's nothing more annoying than pet words. lol

Damaged Eagle wrote:Partly because we can't build enough of these devices to satisfy the demand but most importantly the cost vs erg produced is extremely costly with the technology available hence the huge subsidies. You know it and I know it.

We already covered the fact that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables, but aside from that...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/

The little black box that you see below within Saudi Arabia represents how much land area we would need to devote to a solar array that would meet the entire world's energy demands. This was the case given the level of technology in 2009. I suspect that square would be much smaller and cheaper to produce today. But sure, you're right. Solar power will never be a solution. Cough cough.

It is fair to say that most people would go to a hospital if they needed medical attention or to an authorized computer repair shop to get electronics fixed. Somehow, when they start talking about climate change they throw the experts out the window and go with what the guy on the corner heard on a local talk radio program. This just does not make sense. Sure the factors are too complicated to carry out our own personal experiments. It is for that very reason that we have to rely on the experts who actually have the skills to gather and analyze the data.

This "guy on the corner" type of "common sense" has been used in an attempt to boost the position of the climate change deniers. Some very obscure anomaly in the data will be trotted out as "proof" that it is not happening.

This article and the graphic to illustrate the results of the study should put this sort of disagreement to rest. Of course it won't because the guy on the corner heard something on the radio....but still, for those who are interested in what the experts are saying:

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.


Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1tBXZ)

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

I dont think most people deny climate change. Climate change is natural.

man made climate change can not be proven. most of the false data is just that a bunch of paid off scientist with fixed data.

climate change is a political agenda. face it. you simply are not big enough to make very much effect on this planet. things happening now have happened over and over again through out history.

im not against being prudent with the planet, we all know this. but this false assumption that we should stick another tax on the people because of it is wrong. will you be ok when the UN starts taxing usa to give money to other countries who are not as developed as us because they say we are killing the planet and should pay? its just more BS. just like all this carbon credit sharing, more BS.

solar enrgy will take off when there is a need for it. and when it does, mind you, we will probaly loose another million jobs in the country. thats also another point to think about.

There's one thing we've all overlooked so far in this discussion. The discussion has limited itself to what are now the KNOWN alternative technologies.
But what has happened with every new discovery before is still applicable now.
Which is that before the discoveries are made, they are virtually inconceivble to everyone. UNTIL they are discovered.
There is nothing different about the time we're living in now. A discovery of an entirely NEW and still unknown energy technology could be awaiting us and we just have no way to know about it yet.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Then show the subsidy costs vs ergs of output for your fabulous inventions.

You don't want too. You and the others are afraid to do so because the cost of those subsidies (where you big cash is) isn't paying off and never will. Partly because we can't build enough of these devices to satisfy the demand but most importantly the cost vs erg produced is extremely costly with the technology available hence the huge subsidies. You know it and I know it.

My own opinion is that our best bet would have been to invest in the creation of fusion power and that wind and solar power would go the way of the dinosaurs just like the pony express.

You're not even reading what I wrote. So let's go over it again...

The problem is not solar energy. The problem is that a community organizer and a bunch of political hacks he has surrounding him have no idea how to effectively apply public funds to anything including development of energy technology. Because they've thrown so much public money (and you can't even say "taxpayer money" because the goddamn money is just borrowed money) down special interest ratholes as political paybacks, that has now turned solar energy into a dirty word in the minds of so many in the public

There's no defense of "subsidies" in that. It's exactly the opposite.
And while I'm all for the potential of a breakthrough in fusion, I have no faith in subsidies being the thing that will produce that breakthrough either. That would be no different than the solar subsidies. The government would have the same incompetency and wrong motives (using the money to repay political favors) with that as well.
So now YOU'RE the one championing subsidies, not me. lol

The continued advancement of photovoltaic efficiency will happen because the enormous potential profits provide an incentive to make that happen. Not the misallocation of public money. And exactly the same holds true for fusion and every other alternative energy.

Both photovoltaic and fusion have something in common. With both, the fuel source which is consumed to make electricity is literally unlimited (sunlight with photovoltaic and seawater with fusion).
Which technology will ultimately win out will be determined by a comparison of how cost-effective each technology ultimately becomes. That's yet to be determined. That hasn't played out yet. So unless you have a crystal ball that none of the rest of us have, your favoring one over the other at this point is premature.

And please stop overusing the word "ergs" in your posts. There's nothing more annoying than pet words. lol

Incorrect.

I'm championing investing in research and development in technologies that are not even developed yet and can be spent at any university or college.

While you're championing subsidies for installing current technology that's already available and any company should be able to invest in on it's own.

If you wish to champion subsidies for wind and solar power. LOL! Then you are as guilty as the people that shout and scream about the the subsidies for big oil.

In which case show me the cost of subsidies vs ergs (LOL) of energy produced for oil and your clean energy sources.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Partly because we can't build enough of these devices to satisfy the demand but most importantly the cost vs erg produced is extremely costly with the technology available hence the huge subsidies. You know it and I know it.

We already covered the fact that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables, but aside from that...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/

The little black box that you see below within Saudi Arabia represents how much land area we would need to devote to a solar array that would meet the entire world's energy demands. This was the case given the level of technology in 2009. I suspect that square would be much smaller and cheaper to produce today. But sure, you're right. Solar power will never be a solution. Cough cough.

Then give us the cost of subsidy vs ergs of energy produced for big oil vs your clean energy. Let us see how the costs measure up.

How big is your solar array going to be in ten to twenty years as the demand for more energy production by more and more of the worlds population causes it to increase exponentially?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Chrissy wrote:I dont think most people deny climate change. Climate change is natural.

man made climate change can not be proven. most of the false data is just that a bunch of paid off scientist with fixed data.

climate change is a political agenda. face it. you simply are not big enough to make very much effect on this planet. things happening now have happened over and over again through out history.

im not against being prudent with the planet, we all know this. but this false assumption that we should stick another tax on the people because of it is wrong. will you be ok when the UN starts taxing usa to give money to other countries who are not as developed as us because they say we are killing the planet and should pay? its just more BS. just like all this carbon credit sharing, more BS.

solar enrgy will take off when there is a need for it. and when it does, mind you, we will probaly loose another million jobs in the country. thats also another point to think about.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAEmX0OpMk

Bob wrote:There's one thing we've all overlooked so far in this discussion. The discussion has limited itself to what are now the KNOWN alternative technologies.
But what has happened with every new discovery before is still applicable now.
Which is that before the discoveries are made, they are virtually inconceivble to everyone. UNTIL they are discovered.
There is nothing different about the time we're living in now. A discovery of an entirely NEW and still unknown energy technology could be awaiting us and we just have no way to know about it yet.

There's nothing new about these clean energy sources.

Farmers have been hooking up car alternators to wind mills and storing the electricity in car batteries for decades.

Photoelectric cells, in various forms, have been around for decades also. The person responsible for discovering the photoelectric effect was... wait for it... Albert Einstein and is the reason he received one and only Nobel Prize.

So 'NO'... Wind power and solar power is not a new technologies.

They've been around for decades and they just haven't been utilized in the manner currently available.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

Sal wrote:So, we've established new technologies have a higher upfront investment cost than established technologies. Then ignore the not possible, but inevitable payoff. There you have wingnuts logic. Regress backward.

What technologies would those be and why should the government pay the cost?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M